FAQIR HUSSAIN SHAH And 2 Others vs Mian BASHIR AHMAD And Another
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of 7 Marlas of agricultural land between the petitioners and the respondent. The core legal question was whether the respondent's allotment, which was incorporated into the record of rights and held to be valid by the High Court under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, could be challenged by the petitioners on the grounds of being unauthorized and collusive. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that the allotment of the small area in question was permissible as a marginal adjustment under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that given the long-standing nature of the entries in the record of rights and the respondent's indefeasible entitlement under Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, it was too late to re-examine the validity or alleged collusive nature of those entries. The principle established is that long-standing entries in the record of rights regarding land allotments, once incorporated, are generally immune to belated challenges regarding their initial procedural validity.
- Can an allotment of land made under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme be challenged on the grounds of collusion after it has been incorporated into the record of rights for a significant period?
- Does a person have an indefeasible entitlement to land under Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 once the allotment is finalized in the record of rights?
- Is a marginal adjustment of land permissible under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Section 16, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The property in dispute between the parties is 7 Marlas of agricultural land of which the petitioners claimed allotment and so did the respondent and the High Court in the constitutional jurisdiction .Protected allotment of the respondent holding it to be of a prior date under para. 34 of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, Part II. The petitioners seek leave to appeal and want that the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 4-3-1978 depriving the respondent of the same should be restored.
2. The R.L.11 entries relating to the allotment in favour of the respondent show that against his entitlement he was allotted land measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas on 10-5-1959. To it was added by means of the Tatima and without any operative order an area measuring 7 Marlas which was at that the unallotable and could be given to him under para. 34 of Rehabilitation Scheme No. 2.
3. Under an order passed by the Revenue Assistant on 24-4-1960, 6 Marla out of the 7 Marlas is claimed by the petitioner. The dispute over it was brought before the Assistant Commissioner on remand from the High Court and the Assistant Commissioner, by the impugned order, set aside the allotment of respondent and maintained that of the petitioner. A constitutional petition was filed by the respondent which has been allowed by the High Court on the ground that the allotment of 7 Marlas could be made to the respondent that it was incorporated in the record of rights prepared subsequently and that by operation of law under section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, he has an indefeasible entitlement in respect of it and interference with it was unjustified on such a belated attempt by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has proceeded to argue that the entry with regard to the allotment of these 7 Marlas and the preparation of the Tatima with regard to it is all unauthorised and collusive and the respondent alone is responsible alongwith the Patwari for it. According to him, as there is no backing of a legal order, the same had to be excluded from the property allotted to him.
5. We have examined and find that as held by the High Court the allotment of such a small area in adjustment of some claim of the respondent could be made under para. 34 referred to by way of marginal adjustment. The record prepared in the context showed that since long it was shown as allotted to the respondent. It was to late to go into A the question of collusiveness of those entries or their legal validity and effectiveness. We do not consider in the circumstances this to be a fit case for further examination in this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused.